They're things that don't have to be provided. At best, a government can unjustly limit them.
Free speech is one. It's something you have; it can be limited, rightly or wrongly. By yourself, with nobody else around, you have this right.
Freedom of religion is the same. Nobody grants it to you--you enjoy it by virtue of having a mind. It can be infringed on. It can be protected. But if you're by yourself, you have it. It's a bit trickier when you require props for your religion.
Property, legally acquired, is another. Nobody bestows upon you the right to property. But there is no natural right to receive property--just to acquire it and, once possessed, retain possession. Nobody has to give you property, nobody has to be willing to trade. Forced deals are not part of the right.
In other words, natural rights impose a burden of tolerance on others. That is the obligation imposed on them. Those natural rights that require the participation of others are merely rights to access and opportunity. If you have right to happiness, it doesn't follow others must provide it. You merely have the right to pursue it--as with property. The right to free association does not require that anybody provide you with associates if you're unliked by all. The right to freedom of the press merely requires that the press, if you have one, be untaxed and not unduly limited--there's no requirement that anybody give you a press.
Health care as an inalienable or natural right misses this in a few ways. If you're by yourself, what health care do you have a natural right to? You have the right to take care of yourself given what you have. There's your inalienable right. Seems rather trivial, since freedom to act was so basic it didn't make the top 10, and what you use is going to be your property and that right's also there.
What's left to the right to health care isn't an inalienable right. It's not something you automatically have by virtue of being a human and not having limits thrust upon you. It's like the right to work. If you have a right to work, it means somebody has the obligation to hire and pay you. At that point government--or a warlord--is there interfering with the natural right to free association and property.
The only "positive" right in the Bill of Rights is still negative: It's due process, which means that government will not infringe on your natural rights. It's still a limitation on government, just worded backwards. It's come to be interpreted, a over a century later, as de facto implying that help be provided. But that's already screwing with a crucial part of the definition. It shifts rights from what you enjoy as a human to what you get by virtue of having power. Locke and Hobbes would have a few choice words, as would most of the Founding Fathers.
Health care may be a positive right, one bestowed by government. But as a natural or inalienable right? It's not something you naturally have; you don't inalienably possess it. This right requires an obligation on the part of others to do something for you: If nobody's willing to pay, then governmental force makes them pay; if nobody's willing to render services, then either they have to be bribed through higher pay or they have to be conscripted. I've heard it argued that sex and reproduction are also inalienable rights; if we treat them like some do jobs or health care then we'll have conscripted prostitutes and mandatory womb service provided to men who otherwise can't find a mate. The parallel is ludicrous. But I'm sure there are some who would think this a great idea.
It really is the difference between "kill" and "let die." One's causative, with death meted out. The other is without regard to external agency.
There's the view, not entirely contemporary, that all rights are social constructs, and you have no more a right to life and liberty than you do to whatever else the government or "society" deigns to grant you. This seems like a great idea, because then we can declare anything to be a right. Even required sex with undesirable males (or females). One has to be very picky to avoid sanctioning totalitarianism. If they deprive you of a right, well, who cares, if they take it away it ceases to be a right. There are no natural rights, so the only complaint is, "But I want it." Such arguments boil down to a trivial, "Yup, here's the definition, we're done here" or a careful dance in which words have a variety of definitions carefully chosen by just one side and we must pretend we're having a reasoned argument when what we're doing is carefully shifting definitions as necessary, like getting through a corn maze to the desired exit or using a very carefully stacked deck to win a poker game. That way be dragons.
= new reply since forum marked as read
